On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 08:23:00 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> On 18 Dec 2008 18:01:40 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> 
>>> (Am I the only one that's read "Gladiators at law"?)
>>
>>Probably. :-)
> 
> Shame, it was good.

Author?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 19 Dec 2008 12:17:17 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:

>On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 08:23:00 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On 18 Dec 2008 18:01:40 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> 
>>>> (Am I the only one that's read "Gladiators at law"?)
>>>
>>>Probably. :-)
>> 
>> Shame, it was good.
>
>Author?
>

Frederik Pohl and Cyril M. Kornbluth, 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gladiator-At-Law

Gladiator-At-Law
http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/0671655663/ref=dp_olp_0?ie=UTF8&condition=all

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 19 Dec 2008 12:10:45 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:

>On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 08:24:21 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>
>>>Well, you wrote that then, this is now, as I write this.
>>>
>>>
>> But not as I read it
>
>Well, it was when you wrote your reply, but now it's now, even as you 
>read this it's now. :-)
>
Wasn't it now, then and then, now?

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 19 Dec 2008 12:11:36 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:

>On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 13:40:12 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 07:12:45 -0600, Mike Raiford
>> <"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>>Stephen wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 15:54:42 -0600, Mike Raiford
>>>> <"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Stephen wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 13:30:08 -0600, Mike Raiford
>>>>>> <"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Stephen wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 12:09:27 -0600, Mike Raiford
>>>>>>>> <"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Stephen wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But if the cat is dead will observing it make it live again?
>>>>>>>>> You can never know that answer.
>>>>>>>> Why?
>>>>>>> Because ...
>>>>>> Why Mike why?
>>>>> To make you ask why, that's why :)
>>>> 
>>>> Why?
>>>
>>>Are you training me for when my kid learns this word?
>> 
>> Got it! :-)
>
>No, no, no, the proper response is "Who are you, Carl Sagan?!"
>

(Woosh!)

Didn't someone open his box,years ago?
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 17:26:34 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> On 19 Dec 2008 12:17:17 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> 
>>On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 08:23:00 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>> On 18 Dec 2008 18:01:40 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom>
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>>> (Am I the only one that's read "Gladiators at law"?)
>>>>
>>>>Probably. :-)
>>> 
>>> Shame, it was good.
>>
>>Author?
>>
>>
> Frederik Pohl and Cyril M. Kornbluth,
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gladiator-At-Law
> 
> Gladiator-At-Law
> http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/0671655663/ref=dp_olp_0?
ie=UTF8&condition=all

Cool, will have to have a look.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 19 Dec 2008 12:16:49 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:

>On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 14:29:11 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>
>>>Or perhaps occupies a different hyperplane.
>> 
>> Yip, there is that
>
>Or a different hypersphere.
>

Render it, I dare you ;)

>Which reminds me, there's a really good video exploration of extra-
>dimensional mathematics, can't remember if it was posted here or not.  
>I'll have to see if I can find it again, it was fascinating stuff.
>
>
Please do/

BTW what is the record for the longest thread of trivia?
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 17:27:37 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> On 19 Dec 2008 12:10:45 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> 
>>On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 08:24:21 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>>>Well, you wrote that then, this is now, as I write this.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> But not as I read it
>>
>>Well, it was when you wrote your reply, but now it's now, even as you
>>read this it's now. :-)
>>
> Wasn't it now, then and then, now?

Don't you mean "wasn't it now then, and then now?"?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 17:28:44 +0000, Stephen wrote:

>>>>Are you training me for when my kid learns this word?
>>> 
>>> Got it!
>>
>>No, no, no, the proper response is "Who are you, Carl Sagan?!"
>>
>>
> (Woosh!)
> 
> Didn't someone open his box,years ago?

Robin Williams, "Live at the Met", talking about his son Zachary.

Hilarious stuff.  The logical follow-on is his interview on "Inside the 
Actors Studio" where he talks about the same child as a young adult.  I 
may have to watch that again now. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 19 Dec 2008 12:30:47 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:

>On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 17:27:37 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On 19 Dec 2008 12:10:45 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> 
>>>On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 08:24:21 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>>>
>>>>>Well, you wrote that then, this is now, as I write this.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> But not as I read it
>>>
>>>Well, it was when you wrote your reply, but now it's now, even as you
>>>read this it's now. :-)
>>>
>> Wasn't it now, then and then, now?
>
>Don't you mean "wasn't it now then, and then now?"?
>
I don't know, lets ask Darren?
IIRC he was hot on apostrophes and commas are just fallen apostrophes.

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 19 Dec 2008 12:33:29 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:

>
>Robin Williams, "Live at the Met", talking about his son Zachary.
>
>Hilarious stuff.  The logical follow-on is his interview on "Inside the 
>Actors Studio" where he talks about the same child as a young adult.  I 
>may have to watch that again now. :-)

He is funny, he was on TV here recently and had to be dragged off.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message